The 1619 Project’s Outrageous, Lying Slander of Abe Lincoln

The New York Times’ 1619 Project has aimed at nothing less than a revolutionary reinterpretation of the entirety of U.S. history, “re-centering” African Americans as the sole banner-carriers of America’s principles, even as they have been ruthlessly smashed down, enslaved, and obliterated from memory by more numerous and more powerful whites.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison come in for bashing. So does Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln? Jefferson and Madison, we know, were slave owners. But Lincoln? The author of the Emancipation Proclamation?

In project leader Nikole Hannah-Jones’ verdict, Lincoln, too, is guilty, largely because of one incident. In August 1862, Lincoln invited a committee of black men to the White House. He read to them a prepared statement, urging them to recruit volunteers for colonization outside the United States.

Colonization meant that once freed, former slaves would have to relocate, preferably for a reservation Congress would purchase in Central America.

On those terms, Lincoln appeared to be asking the once-oppressed to volunteer to remove themselves from the place where they had been oppressed, so their oppressors could breathe more freely. “He believed,” adds Hannah-Jones, “that free black people were a ‘troublesome presence’ incompatible with a democracy intended only for white people.”

Some emancipation, right?

But emancipation is exactly what was hiding behind Lincoln’s colonization statement, although the subtlety of that moment, in the complex political currents of the Civil War, seems to have eluded the 1619 Project.

No president before Lincoln ever dared hint at putting an end to American slavery. Lincoln, however, had never made any secret of his anti-slavery convictions. “I am naturally anti-slavery,” he said. “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I cannot remember when I did not so think, and feel.”

But he also knew that, as president, he had no power to act unilaterally—until the slaveholding states gave it to him by triggering a civil war. Even then, Northerners like Robert Bennett Forbes, who detested slavery, were also terrified that freed slaves would demand “all the privileges of citizenship” and “tax the working community by lowering wages” among whites.

Colonization served as the great tranquilizer of white anxiety. ­Beginning in 1816, with the founding of the American Colonization Society, opponents of slavery sugarcoated the idea of emancipation for suspicious whites by promising that freed slaves would be no threat, because they would be gone.

This attracted fierce ­denunciations from free blacks and white abolitionists. But it also drew fury from Southern slaveholders, who saw colonization as a ploy to mobilize Northern opinion against slavery. Colonization, raved the pro-slavery advocate Edmund Ruffin, will only serve “to promote new emancipations.”

Lincoln’s colonization project was, as the English observer Frederick Milnes Edge wrote in 1863, “adopted to silence the weak-nerved, whose name is ­legion.”

This is why Lincoln not only invited the African American “committee” to hear his statement, but also the Washington press corps—so that his ­solicitation for colonization volunteers could be read in the newspapers. Meanwhile, he would have the Emancipation Proclamation in his desk, ready for release, little more than a month later.

In the end, Lincoln only sanctioned one small-scale colonization project, to the Haitian island of Île-à-Vache, and then canceled it after eight months of dreary failure. After that, according to Lincoln’s secretary, John Hay, the president “sloughed off that idea” once and for all as a “hideous & barbarous humbug.”

By then, the Emancipation Proclamation was in full operation, and Lincoln had authorized the arming of black soldiers—and without any mention of colonization. A year and a half later, he was calling for black voting rights, and Frederick Douglass would hail him as “emphatically the colored man’s president.”

Not a single reference to this fierce environment appears in the 1619 Project, which would be akin to explaining the New Deal without a word about the Great Depression.

History—and journalism—are supposed to ask as many questions as the subject demands. But questions are ­exactly what the 1619 Project fails to ask about Abraham Lincoln—and about our history.

SOURCE 






More on the defenestration of a truth-teller

A former head of Britain’s equalities watchdog has been suspended from the Labour Party over allegations of Islamophobia, claiming his vocal criticism of the party for antisemitism led to the action.

Trevor Phillips, an anti-racism campaigner who previously chaired the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), faces an investigation and could be expelled from the party.

The Times reported that he is being investigated over past comments including remarks on Pakistani Muslim men sexually abusing children in northern British towns.

Mr Phillips was among 24 public figures who last year declared their refusal to vote for the Labour Party because of its association with antisemitism.

The EHRC is investigating the Labour Party over claims it failed to tackle its antisemitism problem, and is due to issue its report in the summer.

In a letter to the Guardian in November, the group said the path to a more tolerant society “must encompass Britain’s Jews with unwavering solidarity” and said Jeremy Corbyn has “a long record of embracing antisemites as comrades”.

Mr Phillips told The Times there was no suggestion that he has done anything unlawful and “no one inside or outside the Labour Party has ever suggested that I have broken any rules”.

Writing in an opinion piece for the paper, Mr Phillips said: “If this is how Labour treats its own family, how might it treat its real opponents if it ever gains power again?

“It would be a tragedy if, at the very moment we most need a robust and effective opposition, our nation had to endure the spectacle of a great party collapsing into a brutish, authoritarian cult.”

He added that some will see the action as “as payback by Corbynistas for public criticisms I made of the leadership’s failure to tackle antisemitism in the party. Another possibility is that it’s an attempt to scare the EHRC Commission, which I used to lead and which is investigating Labour’s handling of antisemitism.”

A Jewish Labour Movement Spokesperson: “We await the outcomes of Labour’s leadership election and the EHRC investigation before we can begin to take the Labour Party’s disciplinary process seriously. We need the fully independent process to which all leadership candidates have committed to implement.”

SOURCE 





Brooklyn DA defends no-bail decision on illegal immigrant charged with rape

Brooklyn prosecutors on Wednesday defended their decision not to seek bail for an illegal immigrant charged with raping a 13-year-old girl when he was 19 — describing it as “a sexual relationship.”

“The case was reported by the girl’s mother, alleging that her daughter had a sexual relationship with an older teenager, which constituted statutory rape,” a spokesman for Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez’s office said.

“Accordingly, we did not request bail for this nonviolent felony that allegedly took place a year-and-a-half ago.”

Guatemalan national Miguel Federico Ajqui-Ajtzalam, now 20, was arrested Thursday and hit with charges including second-degree rape for allegedly having sex with the girl on five occasions between October and December 2018.

At Ajqui-Ajtzalam’s arraignment Friday, Assistant District Attorney Jordan Rossman said that she was just 13 at the time and he was 19 — but described the alleged victim as “the defendant’s ex-girlfriend.”

“This case has been reviewed by senior prosecutors in our Special Victims Bureau, and they are recommending supervised release,” Rossman told Brooklyn Criminal Court Judge Hilary Gingold, ­according to a transcript of the proceedings.

Gingold ultimately agreed to ­allow Ajqui-Ajtzalam out on ­supervised release. But she noted that while it was technically alleged statutory rape, “I don’t think a 13-year-old can consent, legally or otherwise, to sex.”

She also seemed troubled to learn that the city’s Administration for Children’s Services had not been notified of the case.

“I believe that ACS should be contacted,” Gingold said. “If this child is not in a safe home that allowed this to happen, that should be an investigation as well.”

The prosecutors’ descriptions of the alleged crime appalled advocates for victims. “A 13-year-old is a child,” said Jane Manning, director of the Women’s Equality Justice Project and a former Queens sex-crimes prosecutor.

“It’s beyond disturbing to hear a prosecutor referring to her as an ‘ex-girlfriend’ instead of a ‘child victim of rape,’ which is what she is.”

“Ongoing sexual abuse of a ­13-year-old is not a ‘relationship’ as the prosecutor called it,” she said. “It’s a crime.”

Ajqui-Ajtzalam was taken into custody by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Monday.

But the agency said it was “frightening” that “he was released onto New York City streets to possibly re-offend” in the first place.

SOURCE 





Racism for Revenue? Late-Night's Incendiary 'Comedy'

C-minus Comedians at “Saturday Night Live” took it upon themselves to lob jokes at black conservatives who attended a White House Black History gathering. Trump supporters came together in faith and fellowship around the leader of the free world, but SNL cast member Chris Redd labeled us as “White House Negroes” as white audience members roared in laughter.

What does it say about the state of our society that we are comfortable enough to openly ridicule black people for exercising the very freedoms we fought for? What does it mean to fight for emancipation and the right to vote when our vote is restricted to a particular party?

Pastor Marc Little lashed out at SNL for the tone-deaf commentary about black conservatives attending the event. In his words, a few leftist comedians “don’t get to determine who is black.”

But I guess racist commentary under the guise of humor is perfectly okay when a black comedian hurls incendiary comments to entertain a white audience. SNL, you sly dog, you.

Sadly, this is nothing new. Americans remember a time when black people were restricted from voting, threatened to support a particular candidate, and even ridiculed and assaulted for exercising their fundamental rights as citizens of this great nation.

Fun fact — I was there in what would have been my second visit to the White House, among conservatives of all colors and backgrounds in a united effort to pray for our president. But it wasn’t to pray for the “ghost of blackface past,” as Redd entertains. (Yes, he really did say this.)

Instead, what I prayed for was this:

I prayed for an America that is truly tolerant of a diversity not of skin color but of ideas.

I asked God to grant President Donald Trump greater insight on the needs of the most vulnerable, but to also prioritize Liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans.

I acknowledged the presence of our Lord and Savior, that he would strengthen our efforts to affirm life and rebuke evil and lawlessness.

So we’ll continue to pray for our president and our country as it stands today, or else we’ll be praying to return to a free society tomorrow. Meanwhile, the cast and producers of SNL should start praying for better ratings should racism be their source of showtime revenue.

SOURCE 

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

************************************